"I have always had the impression that Justice Scalia's primary approach to judging is political," Tim Jost, a professor of law at Washington and Lee University, told TPM. "Therefore, he will interpret the Commerce Clause broadly to support federal laws he likes but narrowly to strike down those he doesn't."

"I have always had the impression that Justice Scalia's primary approach to judging is political," Tim Jost, a professor of law at Washington and Lee University, told TPM. "Therefore, he will interpret the Commerce Clause broadly to support federal laws he likes but narrowly to strike down those he doesn't."

It absolutely has. Clubs and outside groups throw all of the justices loads of dinner parties, speaking engagements, etc. None of that should be occuring at all, for any of them.

Frankly, I'd go a step further and say that the SCOTUS was flawed from day one due to allowing POTUS to nominate judges. OF COURSE they'd nominate judges that are friendly to their political tilt - it's what any politician would do. These judges, like most others, need to be elected by the people.

It absolutely has. Clubs and outside groups throw all of the justices loads of dinner parties, speaking engagements, etc. None of that should be occuring at all, for any of them.

Frankly, I'd go a step further and say that the SCOTUS was flawed from day one due to allowing POTUS to nominate judges. OF COURSE they'd nominate judges that are friendly to their political tilt - it's what any politician would do. These judges, like most others, need to be elected by the people.

Could not disagree more, I think this would lead to even more politicization. If anything I think congress should get to nominate 10 people, the president gets 10 nominees and 10 more names get pulled from the ranks of all federal judges with excellent ratings from the American Bar. They get put in a tumbler and we draw a name at random.

It absolutely has. Clubs and outside groups throw all of the justices loads of dinner parties, speaking engagements, etc. None of that should be occuring at all, for any of them.

Frankly, I'd go a step further and say that the SCOTUS was flawed from day one due to allowing POTUS to nominate judges. OF COURSE they'd nominate judges that are friendly to their political tilt - it's what any politician would do. These judges, like most others, need to be elected by the people.

Could not disagree more, I think this would lead to even more politicization. If anything I think congress should get to nominate 10 people, the president gets 10 nominees and 10 more names get pulled from the ranks of all federal judges with excellent ratings from the American Bar. They get put in a tumbler and we draw a name at random.

Don't draw names have a Spelling Bee/elimination type quiz on American and Constitutional Law.

One thing is certain: DeathHow we get there and how fast depends on our genetics, environment and what we do to slow it.Health Care covers the slowing down part.While I like the idea of freedom and not forcing people to buy something they don't want, death doesn't give a shiat.Everyone will need health care at some point.

It absolutely has. Clubs and outside groups throw all of the justices loads of dinner parties, speaking engagements, etc. None of that should be occuring at all, for any of them.

Frankly, I'd go a step further and say that the SCOTUS was flawed from day one due to allowing POTUS to nominate judges. OF COURSE they'd nominate judges that are friendly to their political tilt - it's what any politician would do. These judges, like most others, need to be elected by the people.

I kinda want to see Obamacare get overturned but not because I don't like it, I want to see the faces of those who decried how bad it was while simultaneously getting effed up the 'b' when they lose their health care coverage.

"expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason" by deciding that "a farmer's cultivation of wheat for his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause."

Guidette Frankentits:I kinda want to see Obamacare get overturned but not because I don't like it, I want to see the faces of those who decried how bad it was while simultaneously getting effed up the 'b' when they lose their health care coverage.

/vagina

They will blame Obama anyway. We are talking about people who think politics should be ceded to those people who wear the most American flags are are the most dedicated revolutionary war cosplayers.

I'm sorry are you refering to his generally deluded and disembling nature or the fact that he and Clarence Thomas are openly taking bribes? For what it's worth, this has long been a problem with republican nominated supreme court justices.

HeartBurnKid:You know what? fark it, strike it down. Leave us with nowhere to go but public option. I dare you.

There's always the "let the poor die in the streets" option. That's attractive because it reduces dependence on social services, reduces the gap in minority employment/academia, provides plenty of jobs in the sanitation/disposal/biofuel industries, and frees up blighted urban areas for redevelopment.

John Lee Johnson · Subscribe · Currently waiting for assignment at WSI

The only RATS are the DemocRATS and we will make sure they will NEVER again have the White House or a Majority on the SCOTUS and Congress. It will be ILLEGAL to be a SOCIALIST SCUM DemocRAT after we are done with you.Reply · Like · 11 minutes ago

Oh look, it's the same guy...

John Lee Johnson · Subscribe · Currently waiting for assignment at WSI

YOU DemocRATS are the real criminals, can't wait until next year when President Romney will round most of you up and throw you in the camps for destroying our country. I'll be RIGHT there throwing the Cyklon-B into your showers, you GODLESS SOCIALIST BABYKILLING SCUMReply · Like · 8 minutes ago

"expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason" by deciding that "a farmer's cultivation of wheat for his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause."

no one else here thinks that isn't over-reach?

Why did he agree with that precedent in his concurring opinion on Gonzales v. Raich?

If the Court rigidly stood by stare decisis, "separate but equal" would still be the law of the land. And Justices sometimes change their own minds. Hugo Black deeply regretted voting in favor of the US on the issue of internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII in the Koramatsu case. Rigid adherence to some ideological concept or rigid adherence to one's own opinions come hell or high water may be de rigeur in the Politics tab, but that's not always the case with judges.

In Scalia's new book, a 500-page disquisition on statutory construction being published this week,

I do not recommend buying this book. Mrs. PCoC decided she wanted some statutory for our garden, you know, like a statue of George Washington and maybe some Greeks and shiat like that. Class the place up. I bought this book 'cause I thought I could save a few bucks by making my own out of concrete or something instead of buying that expensive marble shiat from one of those lawn statutory stores. Anyway, I'm like 300 pages in and this doofus is still talking about court cases and I still haven't learned shiat about constructing statutory.

It absolutely has. Clubs and outside groups throw all of the justices loads of dinner parties, speaking engagements, etc. None of that should be occuring at all, for any of them.

Frankly, I'd go a step further and say that the SCOTUS was flawed from day one due to allowing POTUS to nominate judges. OF COURSE they'd nominate judges that are friendly to their political tilt - it's what any politician would do. These judges, like most others, need to be elected by the people.

ps69:They will blame Obama anyway. We are talking about people who think politics should be ceded to those people who wear the most American flags are are the most dedicated revolutionary war cosplayers.

While that's a totally what they'll do, they jokes on them since they'll lose health insurance.

John Lee Johnson · Subscribe · Currently waiting for assignment at WSI

The only RATS are the DemocRATS and we will make sure they will NEVER again have the White House or a Majority on the SCOTUS and Congress. It will be ILLEGAL to be a SOCIALIST SCUM DemocRAT after we are done with you.Reply · Like · 11 minutes ago

Oh look, it's the same guy...

John Lee Johnson · Subscribe · Currently waiting for assignment at WSI

YOU DemocRATS are the real criminals, can't wait until next year when President Romney will round most of you up and throw you in the camps for destroying our country. I'll be RIGHT there throwing the Cyklon-B into your showers, you GODLESS SOCIALIST BABYKILLING SCUMReply · Like · 8 minutes ago

/we need to amend the Constitution to end that appointment for life crap

The lifetime appointment to SCOTUS was intended to put the judges above thepolitical process. The framer's thinking was that if they were appointed for lifethey would be more fair-minded in deciding issues than if they were directlyelected or had a term of service.

In the main, this is probably been a good strategy: there is a great tradition ofjudges being put on the SCOTUS breaking their previous patterns (ISTR thatEarl Warren was a conservative before his appointment, but turned out to beone of the most progressive judges in history). Unfortunately, the lifetimeappointment also means that party hacks like Scalia and Thomas also get in.

This court, though, has to be the most politicized court since at least beforethe Civil War, and the conservative water carriers aren't anywhere near donewith their damage.

timswar:I am shocked, SHOCKED that Justice Scalia would completely change his interpretation of the law based on current political beliefs.

Shocked I tell you. Just shocked.

And since Thomas is just his ventriloquist dummy we can assume feels the same as Scalia.

To be fair, Thomas has consistently held pre-Wickard views of what the Commerce Clause authorizes; see his concurrences in US v. Lopez, US v. Morrison, and Gonzales v. Raich that all condemned current interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

It absolutely has. Clubs and outside groups throw all of the justices loads of dinner parties, speaking engagements, etc. None of that should be occuring at all, for any of them.

Frankly, I'd go a step further and say that the SCOTUS was flawed from day one due to allowing POTUS to nominate judges. OF COURSE they'd nominate judges that are friendly to their political tilt - it's what any politician would do. These judges, like most others, need to be elected by the people.

Can someone explain to me how a sitting Supreme Court justice selling a book in which he lays out his opinion of laws that will impact his decision in a current case wouldn't be a conflict of interest?

"expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason" by deciding that "a farmer's cultivation of wheat for his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause."

no one else here thinks that isn't over-reach?

He thinks it's overreach when he doesn't like where it reaches. Right into our bedrooms, classrooms, dining rooms, wallets? No such thing as overreach. Commerce Clause is BROAD! fark with the REAL money and suddenly any reach is a bridge too far.

That's what really makes Scalia so detestable. His legal arguments are airtight because they are tautological and based in a body of law that he himself helped form the better part of. Our Supreme Court can now "debate" even fundamental questions about our constitution. There's "precedent" for anything.

And when they don't want to set precedent? They just say that the case is unique and not to be used elsewhere, like Bush v Gore.

History will remember this supreme court as one of the most confusing, inconsistent, and likely corrupt, courts in our history.

There's really only 2 mutually exclusive views on HCR. You either believe that everybody is inherently part of the health care system or you don't.

If you do believe that everybody is using some level of health at all times, there is no way to truly opt out because you will be treated if you get hit by a bus, regardless of whether you have health care.

If you don't believe that people are a part of the health care system at all times, then it should be a moral and legal imperative to stop treating people without health care.

We can't have it both ways, where we treat everyone while charging only some. You either charge everyone and treat everyone or charge some and treat some.

Serious Black:timswar: I am shocked, SHOCKED that Justice Scalia would completely change his interpretation of the law based on current political beliefs.

Shocked I tell you. Just shocked.

And since Thomas is just his ventriloquist dummy we can assume feels the same as Scalia.

To be fair, Thomas has consistently held pre-Wickard views of what the Commerce Clause authorizes; see his concurrences in US v. Lopez, US v. Morrison, and his dissent in Gonzales v. Raich that all condemned current interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

Can someone explain to me how a sitting Supreme Court justice selling a book in which he lays out his opinion of laws that will impact his decision in a current case wouldn't be a conflict of interest?

It's called Above the Law. A lot of people think they are - only a select few really are.

If the court does overturn the mandate, it's going to be hard to know how to react. It's been more than 75 years since the Supreme Court overturned a piece of legislation as big as ACA, and I can't think of any example of the court overturning landmark legislation this big based on a principle as flimsy and manufactured as activity vs. inactivity. When the court overturned the NRA in 1935, it was a shock - but it was also a unanimous decision and, despite FDR's pique, not really a surprising ruling given existing precedent. Overturning ACA would be a whole different kind of game changer. It would mean that the Supreme Court had officially entered an era where they were frankly willing to overturn liberal legislation just because they don't like it. Pile that on top of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United and you have a Supreme Court that's pretty explicitly chosen up sides in American electoral politics. This would be, in no uncertain terms, no longer business as usual. Link

"expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason" by deciding that "a farmer's cultivation of wheat for his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause."

no one else here thinks that isn't over-reach?

Why did he agree with that precedent in his concurring opinion on Gonzales v. Raich?

ftfa: "I'm not sure there is any inconsistency between citing a decision in an opinion and thinking the decision was wrong; Justice Scalia does believe in stare decisis."

Nabb1:If the Court rigidly stood by stare decisis, "separate but equal" would still be the law of the land. And Justices sometimes change their own minds. Hugo Black deeply regretted voting in favor of the US on the issue of internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII in the Koramatsu case. Rigid adherence to some ideological concept or rigid adherence to one's own opinions come hell or high water may be de rigeur in the Politics tab, but that's not always the case with judges.

Prank Call of Cthulhu:In Scalia's new book, a 500-page disquisition on statutory construction being published this week,

I do not recommend buying this book. Mrs. PCoC decided she wanted some statutory for our garden, you know, like a statue of George Washington and maybe some Greeks and shiat like that. Class the place up. I bought this book 'cause I thought I could save a few bucks by making my own out of concrete or something instead of buying that expensive marble shiat from one of those lawn statutory stores. Anyway, I'm like 300 pages in and this doofus is still talking about court cases and I still haven't learned shiat about constructing statutory.

"expanded the Commerce Clause beyond all reason" by deciding that "a farmer's cultivation of wheat for his own consumption affected interstate commerce and thus could be regulated under the Commerce Clause."

no one else here thinks that isn't over-reach?

He thinks it's overreach when he doesn't like where it reaches. Right into our bedrooms, classrooms, dining rooms, wallets? No such thing as overreach. Commerce Clause is BROAD! fark with the REAL money and suddenly any reach is a bridge too far.

That's what really makes Scalia so detestable. His legal arguments are airtight because they are tautological and based in a body of law that he himself helped form the better part of. Our Supreme Court can now "debate" even fundamental questions about our constitution. There's "precedent" for anything.

And when they don't want to set precedent? They just say that the case is unique and not to be used elsewhere, like Bush v Gore.

History will remember this supreme court as one of the most confusing, inconsistent, and likely corrupt, courts in our history.

randomjsa:Translation: Scalia isn't buying the liberal talking point and is instead actually making a decision based on the Constitution.

Question: why did he sign onto the majority opinion that endorsed the Lopez test and issue his own concurring opinion in Gonzales v. Raich where he outright stated "Where Congress has authority to enact a regulation of interstate commerce, it possesses every power needed to make that regulation effective"? He's had 17 years to decide that Wickard v. Filburn was incorrectly decided, and he endorsed the precedent in that case at every single opportunity up till now.